Test Tube Yeast evolves to be Multicellular

[Photonic]

Test Tube Yeast Evolve Multicellularity: Scientific American

Isn't it wonderful? We now have first-hand evidence of the change from single cell to multi-cellularity.

Edit: Can someone change the title to yeast? I typed Years by accident. XD

 

[shawn001]

Cool.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

This is proof that the devil is distorting our understanding of the world!

Or it could be taken as significant evidence for the 'macroscopic' evolution of a microscopic organism... one or the other. Thanks for sharing!

 

[painted wolf]

Very cool! I especially loved the beginning stages of division of labor among the cells. It kind of reminds me of the transition between unicellularity and multicellularity in slime molds.

wa:do

 

[outhouse]

posted this in another forum already.

creationist are still going rabble rabble rabble rabble

 

[Gunfingers]

Dammit, I was going to post here for the first time in months just to link to that article! Bah ha ha.

This is such an awesome find.

 

[Man of Faith]

My sources say that this is selective breeding, not evolution. And that the genetic information for yeast to become multicellular did not evolve, it was already in the genome. The study was published on January 16th, but the experiment was done last June so the skeptical scientists have had a chance to review it and make their statements.

My sources say that this isn't an example of a new kind of organism, but an awakening of a dormant ability that was already in an organism. Sorry evolutionists, that you had to get so excited. Maybe when a frog becomes a Prince naturally you can start shouting again.

:thud:

 

[Photonic]

My sources say that this is selective breeding, not evolution. And that the genetic information for yeast to become multicellular did not evolve, it was already in the genome. The study was published on January 16th, but the experiment was done last June so the skeptical scientists have had a chance to review it and make their statements.

My sources say that this isn't an example of a new kind of organism, but an awakening of a dormant ability that was already in an organism. Sorry evolutionists, that you had to get so excited. Maybe when a frog becomes a Prince naturally you can start shouting again.

:thud:

Your sources are probably...conservapedia?AnswersinGenesis?

Didn't realize you had an evolutionary biologist on call to tell you the study was wrong.

 

[Man of Faith]

Didn't realize you had an evolutionary biologist on call to tell you the study was wrong.

I almost need one to keep falsifying the claims that evolutionists keep making.

 

[Krok]

I almost need one to keep falsifying the claims that evolutionists keep making.

For you to "falsify claims that evolutionists keep making", you have to first publish in scientific journals. The first step in convincing the experts on your "falsification". Could you provide a link where you've even attempted to do it? Without that you're just a nobody who thinks he knows it all.

 

[Photonic]

I almost need one to keep falsifying the claims that evolutionists keep making.

At least our theories are falsifiable and have evidence.

Enjoy that.

 

[Man of Faith]

At least our theories are falsifiable and have evidence.

Enjoy that.

That's how come I can falisfy them, because they are falsifiable. I have no problem with that.

 

[camanintx]

That's how come I can falisfy them, because they are falsifiable. I have no problem with that.

To falsify a theory you have to understand it first, something which you haven't demonstrated here yet.

 

[waitasec]

That's how come I can falisfy them, because they are falsifiable. I have no problem with that.

the audacity of some people.



but it's cause for a good laugh
:biglaugh:

 

[Alceste]

My sources say that this is selective breeding, not evolution. And that the genetic information for yeast to become multicellular did not evolve, it was already in the genome. The study was published on January 16th, but the experiment was done last June so the skeptical scientists have had a chance to review it and make their statements.

My sources say that this isn't an example of a new kind of organism, but an awakening of a dormant ability that was already in an organism. Sorry evolutionists, that you had to get so excited. Maybe when a frog becomes a Prince naturally you can start shouting again.

:thud:

Observe how rapidly creationist arguments evolve under altered conditions in the factual environment. Lol. Yesterday evolution was false because nobody had ever directly observed multi-cellular life evolve from single celled organisms. Today evolution is false because it had the capability to do exactly that all along.

 

[Photonic]

Observe how rapidly creationist arguments evolve under altered conditions in the factual environment. Lol. Yesterday evolution was false because nobody had ever directly observed multi-cellular life evolve from single celled organisms. Today evolution is false because it had the capability to do exactly that all along.

Confirmation Bias at work.

After all, when one is convinced they know the conclusion, they will twist the facts to suit the theory, instead of twisting the theory to suit the facts.

The difference is one is science and one isn't.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Observe how rapidly creationist arguments evolve under altered conditions in the factual environment. Lol. Yesterday evolution was false because nobody had ever directly observed multi-cellular life evolve from single celled organisms. Today evolution is false because it had the capability to do exactly that all along.

LOL Ahhh the evolution of creationism, gorgeous post ^_- frubals mylady

 

[Meow Mix]

My sources say that this is selective breeding, not evolution. And that the genetic information for yeast to become multicellular did not evolve, it was already in the genome. The study was published on January 16th, but the experiment was done last June so the skeptical scientists have had a chance to review it and make their statements.

My sources say that this isn't an example of a new kind of organism, but an awakening of a dormant ability that was already in an organism. Sorry evolutionists, that you had to get so excited. Maybe when a frog becomes a Prince naturally you can start shouting again.

:thud:

Man of Faith, one of the first things that confuses me about your post is that you say, "...this is selective breeding, not evolution." Are you insinuating that artificial selection isn't an evolutionary process? The Scientific American article was clear about this being artificial selection:

In the new paper, researchers at the University of Minnesota used a simple but elegant technique to artificially select for multicellularity in yeast.

(Color added for emphasis). I'm only pointing this out because I hope you understand that the selection mechanism in an evolutionary process is fairly inconsequential in terms of finding a proof-of-concept for the evolution of a particular system. For instance, also from the article:

Because the cells had to cluster together in order to sink to the bottom and survive, the artificial selection made it more advantageous for yeast to cooperate than to be solitary.

After just 60 generations, all of the surviving yeast populations had formed snowflake-shaped multicellular clusters. "Hence we know that simple conditions are sufficient to select for multicellularity," says biologist Michael Travisano, who led the research.

(Color added for emphasis). The breakthrough this study is hailing isn't an explanation of exactly how multicellularity evolved in nature -- it's that we now know it's not as difficult as might have previously been believed for multicellularity to evolve, period (e.g., regardless of whether the selection pressures are artificial or not). That's what the discovery is here.

Another chief complaint that you raise is that "...this isn't an example of a new kind of organism, but an awakening of a dormant ability that was already in an organism." I just hope that you understand that's exactly how evolution of complex systems works. New functions (such as the multicellular behavior) arise in evolution through novel uses of already existing structures and functions. In effect, your complaint is true -- but it's not evidence against evolution; but rather affirming that evolution is exactly what we're seeing here since that's exactly what we'd expect to see.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's how come I can falisfy them, because they are falsifiable. I have no problem with that.

If you falsify evolution because it technically falsifiable, then why do not falsify God since there are more reasons to falsify an anthropomorphic deity that watches over us than there is evolution.

My sources say that this is selective breeding, not evolution. And that the genetic information for yeast to become multicellular did not evolve, it was already in the genome. The study was published on January 16th, but the experiment was done last June so the skeptical scientists have had a chance to review it and make their statements.

Your source seems to be confused. Evolution is it's own theory that describes the genetic changes within a species. Selective breeding, natural selection, or what ever reproduction model is merely the driving force of evolution. Saying it's not evolution because it involved selective breeding is like saying a car isn't a car if has an electric engine instead of a gas engine. Of course it's still a car, it just has a different method that is powering it.

My sources say that this isn't an example of a new kind of organism, but an awakening of a dormant ability that was already in an organism. Sorry evolutionists, that you had to get so excited. Maybe when a frog becomes a Prince naturally you can start shouting again.

This just shows more evidence of your source not being well informed themselves. Novel uses and advances that are already present but become more prominent is what drives one species to gradually become another. An example is how bipedalism evolved over the years, starting with early chimp-like creatures that began to stand to see over the tall grass. As the years turned to centuries, even millenia, and as standing became more of a distinguishable trait, the first of the homo genus, homo habbilis, emerged. And over the next two million years we have walked even more upright, and many changes to the overall structure have resulted from this. The skull has become more rounded, we have gotten taller, our toes are almost useless, the position of sex organs changed, shoulder and arm structure changed, and that is just of the few changes that have occurred. So your source is technically correct, but the reasons show that it's just a lucky guess.

 

[lunamoth]

Very cool! I especially loved the beginning stages of division of labor among the cells. It kind of reminds me of the transition between unicellularity and multicellularity in slime molds.

wa:do

Slime molds - Yay!

Anyway, the idea that all species slowly evolved over time by accumulated changes in genes under the pressure of natural selection really is not as hard to believe as what happens every moment in every cell in our body in a completely 'unguided' manner.

wa:do!